OT, galactic civ II

[Endoperez]

NTJedi said:
Any game which has a poorly designed multiplayer can ruin the multiplayer experience. The multiplayer game could be unbalanced, bugged, loss of features, etc., . Basically it comes down to if the developers are good enough to make the game good for multiplayer as well... I have faith Brad and his team can make it work.

Thye could have done it, probably. But doing a good game takes more than just developers. It takes time. They don't have infinite time. I'm happy with their decision to make a great SP game. I'll probably buy it, and have a great time.

Games such as Morrowind would be better if they had the 'option' for multiplayer. Much more interesting to work with a team of friends in completing a quest or test the builds of each character in a battle. No reason for the multiplayer to mean only PvP. Once the 'compete against myself' gets boring in singleplayer the multiplayer option opens the door for many new challenges such as:
Team doing a quest
Player vs. Player
Strong Player hunts weaker players
Team attacking a large group of enemies
Team hunting a computer monster
Team vs Team
Players able to trade items, money, services
the list goes on and on

But also all the bad things that are seen in MMORPGs. Spamming, farming (not agriculture, but doing boring stuff to become a little more powerful), cheating, unfair trades, simpler quests, no really unique items, inability to solo the game, difficulties in finding people doing the same quest, quests becoming jokes because more experienced players of the team just run through the quest areas, do bare minimum needed, and come back with the reward (to become more powerful little faster), etc. This list also goes on and on. At beast, it could be like Diablo in hotseat. At worst, it would be like a MMORPG released 5 years ago, one that is barely played nowadays, and with servers only staying up for few years before the company puts them to better use.

I still say that it would have to be totally different game if it was developed for multiplayer. And being great might not be good enough. Take Allegiance as an example. 3d space flight battles, with fleets, with commanders, with AI miners players have to defend from opposing players, with big ships whose turrets have to be manned, etc. It flopped, servers went down, and only after lots of fan pleadnig Microsoft released the source for the game, or maybe just for the server program.

Ways of improving the AI are always great! Hopefully something will be introduced which will allow different AI personalities or designs which would also increase replay value.

I thought of the graphical designs in here. They make the game more interesting visually. Have you seen the Transformer-like robot ships? The various birds, dragons, scorpions, etc?

[Gandalf Parker]

Sorry. Im still not convinced of any of this. You kindof strike me as coming across like a lover of MP who looks at every SP game as though it would be better with MP attached to it. But you acknowledge that there are also some great only-MP games.

I on the other hand tend to look at only-MP games as being improved if they added SP. And I acknowledge some great SP games. But at least Im not so hooked that I would push adding SP too hard on some MP developer.

I think that the best in either grouping is written that way from the ground up and could only half-@$$ the other.

[NTJedi]

Gandalf Parker said:
Sorry. Im still not convinced of any of this. You kindof strike me as coming across like a lover of MP who looks at every SP game as though it would be better with MP attached to it. But you acknowledge that there are also some great only-MP games.

I on the other hand tend to look at only-MP games as being improved if they added SP. And I acknowledge some great SP games. But at least Im not so hooked that I would push adding SP too hard on some MP developer.

I think that the best in either grouping is written that way from the ground up and could only half-@$$ the other.

I do both MP and SP games... where did I acknowledge great only-MP_games????

And you are wrong in my view.... if a game is MP only... I truly believe adding SP to a MP_only game would increase replay value. Looks like you are too quick on assumptions.

I believe any game should always expand on the content and its replay value. Increasing replay value for me means adding the following features:

Multiplayer (& Singleplayer if it doesn't exist)
Random Game Generator
Map Editor
MODs
Ability for gamers to adjust/improve the AI
Very Large maps/worlds
Campaign((Multiplayer Campaign is even better))

[alexti]

I have serious doubt about anybody creating game which has great SP and MP in any foreseeable future. You can probably share graphics and story, but the gameplay would have to be written pretty much separately. The core differences are probably in turn structure and game depth. MP games can (and should) have strategic depth (like Dominions), in SP games strategic depth causes a serious problem, because writing AI that can deal with it is not within resources of game developers. Different turn structure means a lot of differences (scripted combat vs turn-based combat, order-based commands vs moves) etc... Of course, that means different balancing, and as result players will need different strategies in SP and MP which brings to the point of pretty much 2 different games under one title. And that I suppose doesn't make business sense, because if developers have expertise to build 2 great games they can just release them as a separate games.

[NTJedi]

alexti said:
I have serious doubt about anybody creating game which has great SP and MP in any foreseeable future.

I could be wrong but I'm sure by visiting the CIV, AOW or NWN forums I could easily find lots of gamers which disagree. Heck I'm sure many gamers do only singleplayer for dominions and really enjoy the game.

alexti said:
... in SP games strategic depth causes a serious problem, because writing AI that can deal with it is not within resources of game developers.

Gamers will always use strategies to find weaknesses of computer opponents... that's one of the main reasons singleplayer games have a more limited replay value. Once you discover weaknesses in the AI... the challenge fades.
Also from what I've seen of GAL_CIV_2 this game appears to have lots of strategic depth. Not sure why you see this lacking/missing.

alexti said:Of course, that means different balancing, and as result players will need different strategies in SP and MP which brings to the point of pretty much 2 different games under one title.

Different strategies in SP and MP exist in almost every single game available which has SP and MP... and all under one title.

alexti said:
And that I suppose doesn't make business sense, because if developers have expertise to build 2 great games they can just release them as a separate games.

It's not two great games... as mentioned earlier GAL_CIV_2 already has an unusual hotseat mode available and working. Behold the miracle already exists, just needs to be made more user friendly and providing MP with optional balanced starts.

[Cainehill]

NTJedi said:

I could be wrong but I'm sure by visiting the CIV, AOW or NWN forums I could easily find lots of gamers which disagree. Heck I'm sure many gamers do only singleplayer for dominions and really enjoy the game.

Let me point out : Civ series : fraking simplistic combat and IMO a pretty boring SP game, plus basically mediocre MP game, in the ones that support MP. NWN : Um??? RPG! Totally different genre - a lot easier making an rpg SP or MP by simply increasing difficulty. AoW : If that's the RTS by microsoft, isn't it pretty darn simplistic, lending to SP or MP? I'm not saying GalCiv2 has the depth of Dom2 - but it has a lot more than most RTS games.

And let's not forget the example of Dom2 : Sure, a number of people think it has a perfectly decent SP game. There's at least an equal number of people who think SP rots, that SP isn't worth playing by the time you play well enough to make it 30-40 turns. (Both the non-existent AI, and the cheezy cheats make it unplayable, or at least non-enjoyable, as a SPS game, imo.)

[NTJedi]

Cainehill said:
Let me point out : Civ series : fraking simplistic combat and IMO a pretty boring SP game, plus basically mediocre MP game, in the ones that support MP.

The combat is basic, but the rest of your statement is probably wrong considering that the overall review of 'all the gamers' is a rating of 9 out of 10... not the website reviewers... all the gamers. I will eventually get the game myself.

Cainehill said:
NWN : Um??? RPG! Totally different genre - a lot easier making an rpg SP or MP by simply increasing difficulty.

I've played lots of RPG games and it takes more than simply increasing difficulty. The point is even tho this is a different genre it is equally great for both singleplayer and multiplayer because thousands of worlds of all types are available for download. Eventually this day will arrive for a TBS game too.

Cainehill said:
AoW : If that's the RTS by microsoft, isn't it pretty darn simplistic, lending to SP or MP? I'm not saying GalCiv2 has the depth of Dom2 - but it has a lot more than most RTS games.

Wrong... it is not Microsoft. AgeofWonders:ShadowMagic.TBS In fact the gamers active on this forum are the multiplayer gamers because computer AI in a solo game are pretty boring once the weaknesses are discovered. Human players learn from their weaknesses and always search for new strategies of attack where a computer AI will follow the same and eventually predictable script.

Cainehill said:
And let's not forget the example of Dom2 .... (Both the non-existent AI, and the cheezy cheats make it unplayable, or at least non-enjoyable, as a SPS game, imo.)

Adjusting the .map file, using the game tool from The Paladin, or the randomly generated maps with extra stuff from Gandalf definitely has worked for me continuing playing DOM_2 games solo. Also I don't use spells the computer doesn't use such as GhostRiders, FlamesfromtheSky, etc., .


-----------------
AI weaknesses from GAL_CIV_2 have already been discovered and more will surface making it also unplayable eventually... even sooner considering the game has no editor. Overall adding multiplayer will greatly increase the replay value and members of its community.

[alexti]

NTJedi said:

I could be wrong but I'm sure by visiting the CIV, AOW or NWN forums I could easily find lots of gamers which disagree.

Everything is relative. There're always people claiming all kind of things. But people who play MP in games like Civ or AOW have never played Dominions, so they have nothing to compare with and don't really know what good MP can be like. Just read strategy section in Civ4 forums and check what MP strategies are being discussed...

NTJedi said:
Also from what I've seen of GAL_CIV_2 this game appears to have lots of strategic depth. Not sure why you see this lacking/missing.

Well, I just can't find it. Every civ plays pretty much the same. You research same techs and trade like crazy. Combat have no options. So it's pretty much typical exponential TBS. The main thing which sets it apart is a good AI.

NTJedi said:

It's not two great games... as mentioned earlier GAL_CIV_2 already has an unusual hotseat mode available and working. Behold the miracle already exists, just needs to be made more user friendly and providing MP with optional balanced starts.

There won't be much fun playing MP the way the game is structured right now. It's same thing as Civ4 - a lot of turns, a lot of micromanagement and very few decisions.

[Gandalf Parker]

Im not saying that it cant be done. Nor that it shouldnt be done. Im just commenting that its not as simple to do as its been made out to be. Its extremely rare that any game can achieve more than being great at one of them and the other tacked on. And often, the effort simply ends up degrading them both.

[NTJedi]

Endoperez said:
They could have done it, probably. But doing a good game takes more than just developers. It takes time. They don't have infinite time. I'm happy with their decision to make a great SP game. I'll probably buy it, and have a great time.

Only the developers know how much time is needed. Moving to a more balanced and stable multiplayer setup could be minor or major issue. Since a funky hotseat already works they mainly need to focus on balance and stability. Hopefully multiplayer is added so I can toss my money towards these developers.

Endoperez said:
But also all the bad things that are seen in MMORPGs. Spamming, farming (not agriculture, but doing boring stuff to become a little more powerful), cheating, unfair trades, simpler quests, no really unique items, inability to solo the game, difficulties in finding people doing the same quest, quests becoming jokes because more experienced players of the team just run through the quest areas, do bare minimum needed, and come back with the reward (to become more powerful little faster), etc. This list also goes on and on.

Seems like all the issues you listed are only problems for internet gamers.... so make the game LAN only and virtually all those problems vanish or become unimportant.

Endoperez said:
I still say that it would have to be totally different game if it was developed for multiplayer. And being great might not be good enough.

Gal_Civ_2 was at least moving towards multiplayer at one time since the game works a funky hotseat now. The multiplayer option is just another feature to add as part of an expansion. I'm completely confident Brad and his team can add a stable and balanced multiplayer for Gal_Civ_2. If your view is different that's fine.

Endoperez said:
Take Allegiance as an example. 3d space flight battles, with fleets, with commanders, with AI miners players have to defend from opposing players, with big ships whose turrets have to be manned, etc. It flopped, servers went down, and only after lots of fan pleadnig Microsoft released the source for the game, or maybe just for the server program.

Never played this game so I can't comment.

Endoperez said:
I thought of the graphical designs in here. They make the game more interesting visually. Have you seen the Transformer-like robot ships? The various birds, dragons, scorpions, etc?

I've seen a few... would be great to do a surprise attack with some of those designs against my relatives.